There is an opposing philosophy, some based creators insist on staying on youtube, for example, where the enemy doesn't want them. Doug Tennapel being a good example (use an ad blocker)
I still think that you are ultimately providing your enemy FREE CONTENT.
You are driving traffic to their website and to their ecosystem and delivering advertisers to their website.
Exclusive, original content should be uploaded to and hosted by ecosystems that promote free speech.
There are plenty of alternative video hosting sites that need exclusive content badly. Doug Tennapel is making the wrong decision. Up front he thinks he's getting more views and clicks on youtube, but in the long wrong it will hurt him because if or when youtube bans him, most of those subscribers will not follow him to the other platforms he will then turn to.
Now CUE 100 faggots here linking to twitter today.
There is an opposing philosophy, some based creators insist on staying on youtube, for example, where the enemy doesn't want them. Doug Tennapel being a good example (use an ad blocker)
Although that philosophy has a few arguments...
I still think that you are ultimately providing your enemy FREE CONTENT.
You are driving traffic to their website and to their ecosystem and delivering advertisers to their website.
Exclusive, original content should be uploaded to and hosted by ecosystems that promote free speech.
There are plenty of alternative video hosting sites that need exclusive content badly. Doug Tennapel is making the wrong decision. Up front he thinks he's getting more views and clicks on youtube, but in the long wrong it will hurt him because if or when youtube bans him, most of those subscribers will not follow him to the other platforms he will then turn to.
Might want to go higher for Goolag. Chek who owns them, Alphabet.
I would not include Jimmy Wales. I know he's leftist, but he does not control Wikipedia like the others control their companies.
What's wrong with Tim cook?